• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trebuchet said:
According to many on the right, Obama has spent eight years as a dictator with unlimited power.
Click to expand...

And believe that he's completely ineffectual. It's the Truther mindset. The gubmint's all-powerful, but completely incompetent.

Steve S
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
IOW you are blind to the disasters Bush caused or at a minimum oversaw with incompetence:

9/11 -- ignored warnings, alseep at the wheel
Iraq War -- lied us into, seriously mismanaged
Katrina devastation -- appointed an incompetent head of FEMA, responded too slowly
Collapsed economy -- ignored warnings, alseep at the wheel
Click to expand...

Granting all that without rebuttal, you make my point: we survived 8 years of Bush2, we can take 4 years of Trump.

Remember, I'm not arguing Trump would be a good president, nor that he is a better candidate than Hillary. Just that it isn't doom and gloom and a nightmare, end-of-the-world scenario.

Georgie Bush had the "nooclar" football. Senile Reagan had it. Kim Jong Un has a version. Pakistan and India have theirs. And I'm supposed to worry about Trump?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Really? He has the thinking of a teenage bully. So embarrassing.
Click to expand...

And what do you think about the Clinton campaign's decision to use Mark Cuban to troll Trump during the debate? I would say that both invitations are equally trollish. I have no problem with Trump responding by inviting Gennifer Flowers, although I doubt it will actually come to fruition.
 
sunmaster14 said:
And what do you think about the Clinton campaign's decision to use Mark Cuban to troll Trump during the debate? I would say that both invitations are equally trollish. I have no problem with Trump responding by inviting Gennifer Flowers, although I doubt it will actually come to fruition.
Click to expand...

I said highschool bully. Both are trollish, but mark Cuban is a more adult pick that actually relates to areas where Trump lacks. Trump's pick is somebody bill cheated with.
 
sunmaster14 said:
And what do you think about the Clinton campaign's decision to use Mark Cuban to troll Trump during the debate? I would say that both invitations are equally trollish. I have no problem with Trump responding by inviting Gennifer Flowers, although I doubt it will actually come to fruition.
Click to expand...

A businessman commenting on a businessman whose business acumen is his main "qualification."
The candidate's spouse's ex lover.

Yup, a direct equivalency.
 
sunmaster14 said:
And what do you think about the Clinton campaign's decision to use Mark Cuban to troll Trump during the debate? I would say that both invitations are equally trollish. I have no problem with Trump responding by inviting Gennifer Flowers, although I doubt it will actually come to fruition.
Click to expand...


Mark Cuban is a powerful and influential business man who has made billions with his ideas and insights. Flowers is someone I have to google ever time her name is mentioned (the entire twice in the last ten years). Mark Cuban has much, much more reason to be there than Flowers.

I'm not claiming they aren't doing it mainly to piss of Trump, but Cuban is a peer and legitimate political critic of Trump. Flowers simply isn't either of those things. No, that's not an insult to the woman herself. I don't belong there either. Just because they're both being done for primarily the same reason, doesn't make them equal.

EDIT: BobTheCoward said it better and shorter.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I said highschool bully. Both are trollish, but mark Cuban is a more adult pick that actually relates to areas where Trump lacks. Trump's pick is somebody bill cheated with.
Click to expand...

Cuban has been trolling Trump for quite a while. He said something about the only way Trump would have $10 billion is if he [Cuban] paid Trump to wash his [Cuban's] balls. He is not there to provide a critique of Trump (how could he? - it's a Presidential debate - there is no question and answer with the audience). He is there to try to distract Trump or throw him off his game. It seems like good strategy for Trump to do the same to Hillary. This isn't about policy arguments. This is about trying to get under somebody's skin and make him or her perform worse in the debate.
 
tyr_13 said:
<snip>

EDIT: BobTheCoward said it better and shorter.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did. His answer was also disingenuous. Everybody knows why Cuban is going to be in the front row. It's to try to get under Trump's skin, which strikes me as unbalancing the debate. Adding Gennifer Flowers to the mix evens the playing field.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I said highschool bully. Both are trollish, but mark Cuban is a more adult pick that actually relates to areas where Trump lacks. Trump's pick is somebody bill cheated with.
Click to expand...

This can also damage Donald's attempt to recapture white college educated women by trying to taunt Hillary with someone her spouse cheated on her with. All class that Donald.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Yes, he did. His answer was also disingenuous. Everybody knows why Cuban is going to be in the front row. It's to try to get under Trump's skin, which strikes me as unbalancing the debate. Adding Gennifer Flowers to the mix evens the playing field.
Click to expand...


He's not going to be in the front row, Flowers doesn't even the playing field, and your rejoinder doesn't actually address the substance of the criticism of the choice. Flowers is not an equivalent pick as Cuban. I don't believe for a second Cuban is being used in that he's basically in the same 'peer group', except that he actually is a successful business man.
 
marplots said:
Granting all that without rebuttal, you make my point: we survived 8 years of Bush2, we can take 4 years of Trump.

Remember, I'm not arguing Trump would be a good president, nor that he is a better candidate than Hillary. Just that it isn't doom and gloom and a nightmare, end-of-the-world scenario.

Georgie Bush had the "nooclar" football. Senile Reagan had it. Kim Jong Un has a version. Pakistan and India have theirs. And I'm supposed to worry about Trump?
Click to expand...
Well there's are more than 10,000 people that didn't survive if you count 9/11, Katrina, and the Americans lost in Iraq. According to one source, 7 million people lost their homes, millions lost retirements savings, my son lost a good chunk of his college fund, not to mention how many students are today left with the largest collective student debt in history, outstripping even the total credit card debt.

Where were you under a rock? Or did it just not affect you personally so you don't give a rip about anyone else. Elect Trump so you can have a laugh over it all. :mad::mad::mad:

Rule 10 and 12 prevent me from telling you what I really think of your nonsense that Trump won't be the biggest disaster this country has known maybe short of two world wars (and frighteningly maybe not).
 
sunmaster14 said:
Cuban has been trolling Trump for quite a while. He said something about the only way Trump would have $10 billion is if he [Cuban] paid Trump to wash his [Cuban's] balls. He is not there to provide a critique of Trump (how could he? - it's a Presidential debate - there is no question and answer with the audience). He is there to try to distract Trump or throw him off his game. It seems like good strategy for Trump to do the same to Hillary. This isn't about policy arguments. This is about trying to get under somebody's skin and make him or her perform worse in the debate.
Click to expand...

No. Flowers is bush league. You get someone like the security dude for her server that posted on Reddit and has some immunity from the Senate.
 
tyr_13 said:
He's not going to be in the front row, Flowers doesn't even the playing field, and your rejoinder doesn't actually address the substance of the criticism of the choice. Flowers is not an equivalent pick as Cuban. I don't believe for a second Cuban is being used in that he's basically in the same 'peer group', except that he actually is a successful business man.
Click to expand...

Yes, she is. Cuban has been trolling Trump for ten years. Lately he's been particularly profane about it. There is only one reason Hillary's campaign invited Cuban to be there. I'm sorry that you can't admit that.

As for being in Trump's peer group, I'll admit that Cuban and Trump do have an awful lot of similarities. That doesn't mean that Cuban has any particular insight into Trump that is useful. Gennifer Flowers and Hillary Clinton have some similarities too. They both were attracted to Bill, for one. They might have both even had sex with Bill more than once.
 
tyr_13 said:
He's not going to be in the front row, Flowers doesn't even the playing field, and your rejoinder doesn't actually address the substance of the criticism of the choice. Flowers is not an equivalent pick as Cuban. I don't believe for a second Cuban is being used in that he's basically in the same 'peer group', except that he actually is a successful business man.
Click to expand...

Lol

Why does it have to be an equivalent pick? You're another one so used to dems getting their way. I want to see him knock her out! Politically of course. :)
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
No. Flowers is bush league. You get someone like the security dude for her server that posted on Reddit and has some immunity from the Senate.
Click to expand...

Hilarious, thanks for the best laugh of the night. If you understood what this woman means to Hillary, you'd understand why she is the best pick. That security dude doesn't mean **** to Hillary!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom